it's not just about saving animals. it's about who you are. are you a person who contributes to cruelty against animals or not. in 98% of my life choices i'm not and the other 2% (linoleum) i'm working on. it makes me feel good about myself because i like animals. it also gives me moral authority. ive argued veganism many times and it always ends up getting degraded by carnivores into childish shouting.

I doubt you have conversations with many true carnivores unless you are talking to your cat. Many (most) people are omnivores. Humans utilize land for our food needs thereby secondarily killing animals/driving them to extinction by using up resources. There is little if any 'moral' ground. Not even less cruel. You live, you eat, in some way you are using resources shared by animals and humans clearly have the upper hand. Growing our food forces animals out of their habitats, uses up their food sources, etc.. We utilize forests for housing, paper.. etc.. land for farming, water for a variety of issues. Pat yourself on the back and feel as good as you want about yourself, but it's more or less an illusion. Wherever you live, animals once roamed free in abundance. One way or another we humans have changed that.

it is not an illusion that i do not contribute to the slaughter of animals for food. it is not an illusion that i have succeedd in removing 98% of animal products from my life. stop sounding so resigned to the carnivore fate. we are a very adaptable species. adapt yourself out of the carnivore trap. i did. what you are not saying is that you *like* eating meat. it then becomes necessary to create a hokum rationale to defend that practice otherwise you have to accept the vegan arguments and give up your lovely big mac.

carnivores always use the word 'unfortunately' as if their definition of realism dooms us all to repeat the same old misery for ever more. sustainability or lack thereof is not a vegan problem, it's a carnivore problem. recalcitrant carnivores patting themselves on their down to earth realist backs are burning this planet up and there's no stopping them. i was in a chinese cafe today and they had duck tongue on the mneu. how utterly depraved is that. there's no hope for those people unless they listen to the likes of me. and of course, no one will.

Veganism is not the basic de facto choice of nutrition for humans. There is no human biological requirement for any one specific food we might be protecting from animals. It may not be necessary to eat beef, as vegns prove, but neither is it necessary to eat wheat, as celiacs prove, or many fruits and vegetables, as those with fructose malabsorption prove.

Food is necessary. But since everyone is able to cut something out of their diets there is no particular food that humans absolutely have to eat out of necessity. It is a senseless, then, to say that corn is necessary and deer steak is not, since both are foods. Which means that if necessity is a justification for violating animal rights, and food is considered necessary, this should apply to all foods, not just vegan foods.

As for your other argument stating that by eating vegan helps you attain a morally higher ground as you are not involved in intentional harming or killing of such animals - so are meat eaters. Meat eaters don’t necessarily want to kill animals. It just so happens that you must kill animals in order to eat meat. Since meat is the intended end, not the killing of animals. I'm an animal lover myself, having taken up zoology as a side hobby. Not to mention the fact that I come from a community where 70℅ of the populace is vegetarian.

Even the argument that deaths of animals in vegan agriculture are accidental, compared to the purposeful killing of an animal is flawed. Alright there can be a difference between intentionally stabbing someone to death and accidentally hitting someone with your car. Yes, the intentional murder is worse, but involuntary manslaughter is a crime too. So why is involuntary manslaughter an offense when committed against a human, but involuntary animal slaughter is morally neutral? That only makes sense if you believe that the death of an animal matters less than the death of a human. Ergo there is no morally higher ground unless you surround yourself with such illusions.

Food is necessary. But since everyone is able to cut something out of their diets there is no particular food that humans absolutely have to eat out of necessity. It is a senseless, then, to say that corn is necessary and deer steak is not, since both are foods.

this is what is called sophism. if you can live without eating meat, and you can, it is not necessary.

As for your other argument stating that by eating vegan helps you attain a morally higher ground as you are not involved in intentional harming or killing of such animals - so are meat eaters. Meat eaters don’t necessarily want to kill animals.

meat eaters can choose not to kill animals. they do not have to eat meat. i cant reasonably choose not to eat plants as i wd die.

I'm an animal lover myself, having taken up zoology as a side hobby

.

zoologists do many cruel things to animals. zoos are high on the list of vegan things to get rid of.

Even the argument that deaths of animals in vegan agriculture are accidental, compared to the purposeful killing of an animal is flawed. Alright there can be a difference between intentionally stabbing someone to death and accidentally hitting someone with your car. Yes, the intentional murder is worse, but involuntary manslaughter is a crime too.

\

it is not my agriculture. i wd be an organic farmer for example, saving minibeast and birdlife from pesticides and other chemicals. i also ingest those chemicals. i am dependant on others to survive and those others are letting me down.

So why is involuntary manslaughter an offense when committed against a human, but involuntary animal slaughter is morally neutral?

it's a question of responsibility as with any crime. i have removed myself from the process of harming animlas as much as humanly possible. a farmer spraying crops and shattering hedgerows has other choices he is failing to make. he is guilty, i am not. i have moral highground.

That only makes sense if you believe that the death of an animal matters less than the death of a human.

i wd say this is a classic carnivore mindset seeing as people eat chickens and cows but not humans.

Last edited by redrobot on Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

This conversation has veered from the topic of Hobbits/movies and should probably be in Manwe.

There are people with carbohydrate intolerance who are left with little to eat but protein, meats, & fat.

Humans evolved large brains by eating meat. Vegetarian/Vegan diets can be healthy (potentially more so than the 'average' diet) but for it to be considered 'natural' for humans is a stretch.

My issue with this topic is extremism. Extremism/fanaticism/radicalism in any form; political, religious, etc.. and forcing one's opinion or way of life on others rarely comes to good end. The person who covers themselves with cloth (or forces others to) and claims moral superiority.. eh..I don't buy it. I am sure they do not feel so and they are free to live as they choose, but it's an illusion, in my opinion. I am not saying there are not good people of faith who do these things, I just don't buy into the 'superiority' of it by virtue of extremism. I could give many examples, but this is not the proper thread to do so. Suffice to say, the person who claims to be better than their neighbor because they are this, that, or the other is variable, questionable and often not black and white. The example I gave earlier of palm oil (a vegan product) causing life threatening extinction to the orangutans is just one example of what humans do to animals for food, directly or indirectly.

The area where I live, 200+ years ago, teamed with wildlife; deer, bear, moose, bison, wolves, fox, cougar, mink, etc... they are not rare here now because people killed them for food, we destroyed their habitat by our mere being. We use the same resources. We humans are all culpable of that by our mere being. We use the land to raise crops/food, the forests to build our homes, etc.. which edges animals out. Is that unkind to the animals? Yes, I would think they would feel that way.

And in keeping with the topic, I'd say hobbits were not extremists but consistent with English country folk (as Tolkien intended) and were traditional subsistence farmers who were a bit myopic.

sigh. you have all that learned eloquence and cant yet see that killing animals is not necessary so dont do it because youd rather see a live rabbit than a dead one. if you cant see that now then you are doomed.

All that eloquence and you (we?) cannot see that we would not rather see an unspoiled natural wilderness and would not rather see a tree than a house. *sigh* It's a sorry state of affairs to be sure. One cannot survive without affecting the other.

In any case the topic is 'carnivore' (omnivore) hobbits in the shire and we are not going to change that. The story is written, the author has passed. The movies are made. You are free to write your own utopian novel where humans do no harm to any creature. Suffice to say, I think there would have to be far fewer (or no) humans for that to be the case.. but give it a go!

P.S. There are many on these boards who do not speak English as a first language and proper spelling & correct punctuation is appreciated to avoid confusion. It used to be a part of the Terms of Service, but I'm not sure if that is still listed, they redid the boards a year or so ago.

my original point about omnivore hobbits was that their general appearance is one of mellow passivity and bumbling nicety and yet some of their practices (killing pigs) totally undermines this impression. i think that's interesting because it's something that happens in this society. the carnivore element of omnivorism is made to look civilized and acceptable when in fact it is a horror in which people are walking around drenched in blood if only they could see it. it's a political piece of film criticism for me to point this out. a heresy in fact.

We, collectively, have 'killed the rabbit' whether we eat it or not by virtue of our being and usurping habitat & resources. Is that brutal? Yes, most certainly. Life is not gentle. We do not eat bees yet we kill them by using neonicotinoids, etc to protect our crops from pests (don't even get me started). We have driven many animals to extinction or near extinction by encroaching on their land, using up their resources/water, etc.. Cotton, a non-animal product, uses an enormous amount of water to produce; something like 20,000 liters for 1kg of cotton (equivalent of 1 t-shirt & a pair of jeans) which affects animals who would otherwise utilize those resources and in turn affects their food chain/reproduction. It is the reason I personally think sustainability is more important. Of course that suits my aversion to extremism and allows for personal preference and value of individuals.

Historically, the Human animal has made use of food at hand and that adaptability has insured survival. The availability and types of food widely varies dependent on habitat/climate. Inuit and Mongols survive(d) almost solely on meat & animal products due to their climate being inhospitable to sufficient alternative food sources. To those populations vegetarianism/veganism would be seen as an incredible (and unwelcome, most likely) luxury/inconceivable use of resources.

As for hobbits, Veganism/Vegetarianism is not (at least at this time nor, especially, in the time it was written) the norm. If it offends the sensibility of some of us, well that would apply to almost anything ever written or produced, not in particular Tolkiens Hobbits of the Shire. I would think that most, if not all of us, could find something objectionable/distasteful in almost anything that most of the population finds acceptable. Tolkien was not writing for a niche audience and most people would find an omnivorous diet part of an idyllic lifestyle. Who knows, perhaps meat is why the hobbits finally grew to average human size ? *edited to add: besides Ent-draught of course, which wasn't available in the Shire.

Last edited by RoseMorninStar on Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

so a 10 year vegan is the same as a man who has bacon for breakfast. no. you are reasoning in absolutist terms. you are saying that because i am a little bit tainted (i have a linoleum floor and eat vegetables from agri business) all my efforts are worthless. do you seriously believe that?

so a 10 year vegan is the same as a man who has bacon for breakfast. no. you are reasoning in absolutist terms. you are saying that because i am a little bit tainted (i have a linoleum floor and eat vegetables from agri business) all my efforts are worthless. do you seriously believe that?

Your arguments assume what they need to prove: namely that eating animals is antithetical to the laid back society of the hobbits. You haven't done so.

The antebellum South is mythologised as a laid back agrarian society, despite slavery.

You haven't even proved your underlying argument that it is wrong to eat animals.

No, I'm not saying it's the same. I'm saying that, at this point in humanity, especially because there are so very many humans, we have negatively impacted the life of animals (and our shared environment) in innumerable ways; not just by eating them. One issue is not necessarily easily removed from the other or more 'moral' or 'superior'. We are not benign. Life is not benign. If everyone gave up eating meat tomorrow, if everyone became vegans tomorrow, we would still greatly negatively affect the animals around us (as with the Orangutans & palm oil, as one example). That said, I do understand the negative impact of animal husbandry/consumption on our environment and consider it a very important issue. But the same concerns apply to many things; our need for fuel, housing, transportation, water and other resources. It's a huge (and important) topic and one can easily become myopic because it's easier to address one small portion of that huge topic than to deal with the great problem of the best way to utilize our resources with an ever-growing population. What one person may take on as a personal way of dealing with these issues is different than another might. It's not perfect.

And, again,(Back to 'The Hobbit') this story was not written for a small slice of the population, it has a different/larger message from a time when there were far fewer humans. The world population has more than tripled since the publication of 'The Hobbit' and, presumably greatly increased since the fictional age of the Hobbits.

*I had considered stepping away from this topic in particular & comparing it (imperfectly) to another topic but I wasn't sure that was a good idea ...

Your arguments assume what they need to prove: namely that eating animals is antithetical to the laid back society of the hobbits. You haven't done so.

the last sentence here doesnt make sense. and no i am not saying it is antithetical to the laid back society of the hobbits, i am saying that that society, while it superficially appears to be laid back, is not in fact laid back. all that sentimental hovis music and hugging leads us into a false sense of cuddly hobbit-dom when in fact they are knife wielding neck wringing realists.

The antebellum South is mythologised as a laid back agrarian society, despite slavery.

first ive heard of it.

You haven't even proved your underlying argument that it is wrong to eat animals.

i guess you have to ask yourself whether you think causing pain and death to sentient beings is wrong or not.

Are cats 'wrong' for being carnivores? Are dogs 'wrong' for being omnivores? Are cows 'wrong' for being herbivores? Humans are omnivores. We developed into the humans we are today (with our large brains) because we ate meat. Humans can choose not to eat meat, or choose not to eat/utilize any animal products (with supplementation), but that is not our natural state. It is a preference chosen by some for a variety of reasons. That does not make meat-eating 'wrong'.

Sustainability (of all of our resources) and the humane treatment of animals is, in my opinion, a better argument.

it is wrong if you do not believe in causing pain and death to other creatures. it is not wrong if you think that is ok. you think that is ok. this gives me a particular perspective on your personality that has been barred by the mods.

it is wrong if you do not believe in causing pain and death to other creatures. it is not wrong if you think that is ok. you think that is ok. this gives me a particular perspective on your personality that has been barred by the mods.

Does that make cats and other carnivores/omnivores "wrong"? How about eagles & hawks? Fish who eat other fish? Shall we get rid of all animals (including humans) who are not herbivores? Studies have shown that plants communicate & feel pain (as per a link earlier in the thread). Plants are living things and when we harvest them, eat them, we cause their death and likely, pain. We cause the death/sometimes extinction of animals by usurping land and resources. Wherever you live, and maybe in a distant past depending upon where that is, the land teamed with all sorts of animals who are no longer there because humans encroached on their territory. Our very being is harmful to animals.

I did not design creation. If I had, things would likely be different. You use the word "wrong" and, as humans are designed to be omnivores, it is not "wrong". It may be cruel, unfortunate, sad, a sorry state of things, distasteful, all sorts of things, but not "wrong".